Spouses of patients with coronary heart disease had varied perceptions about its aetiology and drug treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kärner A, Dahlgren MA, Bergdahl B. Coronary heart disease: causes and drug treatment—spouses’ conceptions. J Clin Nurs 2004;13:167–76.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What are the perceptions (or conceptions) of spouses of patients who have had a cardiac event regarding the causes of coronary heart disease (CHD) and effects of drug treatment? Qualitative study using an empirical and inductive approach. Norrköping and Jönköping in southeast Sweden. 25 spouses (mean age 55 y, 68% women) who were living with a partner who had had a cardiac event about 1 year earlier. 18 patients had had a myocardial infarction (MI), and 19 had received revascularisation. 12 spouses were working, 2 were unemployed, 10 were retired, and 1 was a student. Data were collected using semistructured interviews that lasted 60–90 minutes and focused on spouses’ conceptions about 5 domains related to possible causes of CHD: physical activity, diet, stress, smoking, and drug treatment. Conceptions concerning causes of CHD. All spouses regarded physical exercise as a positive factor in the rehabilitation of patients with CHD. However, most did not mention inactivity as a cause … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bclinical%2Bnursing%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BClin%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DK%25C3%25A4rner%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D13%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D167%26rft.epage%253D176%26rft.atitle%253DCoronary%2Bheart%2Bdisease%253A%2Bcauses%2Band%2Bdrug%2Btreatment--spouses%2527%2Bconceptions.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1365-2702.2003.00871.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14723668%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00871.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14723668&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F4%2F128.1.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000188224100006&link_type=ISI
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".